Re: [dss] [Fwd: Async comments by Tommy]

[Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>]

Hi Andreas -

> I wouldn't mind to widen the core functionality, but you are manadating to
> narrow the functionality. 

Sorry, I don't understand the second part.

Regards,
Tommy

On 7/12/05, Andreas Kuehne <kuehne@klup.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andreas Kuehne <akuehne@yahoo.com>
> To: Nick Pope <pope@secstan.com>, Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>, kuehne@klup.de
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Async comments by Tommy
> Hi Tommy, hi Nick,
> 
> currently I am out of reach of my OASIS-licensed mail account. But I don't let more time pass by
> ...  I'll submit this to the list tonight.
> 
> 
> > 1)
> > For service endpoints that support both the Sign and the Verify
> > protocol's there is no "general purpose" Response element
> > available that can be used as a response in situations where
> > an unknown request id received in a PendingRequest. I.e. an unknown
> > request id corresponds to neither a (previously received) Sign nor Verify
> > request.
> >
> > I think DSS (and its profiles) would benefit from a <Response> element that
> > could be used in situations like this. This could be implemented
> > by refactoring the Core schema through introduction of a common ancestor
> > element to SignResponse and VerifyResponse and pulling up common information
> > items. This is identical to XKMS from which this profile borrows.
> 
> Yes, you are right. It's a problem not limited to the Async profile. But working on the Async I
> felt the need for a more abstract 'request'/'response' objects. But after a short discussion (
> iirc with Trevor and Ed ) we concluded to leave the core as it is for the sake of clear
> structures.
> 
> But indeed you brought up a good argument ! In case of a poll request with an unknown id you may
> choose a response type unexpected by the client.
> 
> I would second an approach of moving up the common parts of the different responses to a common
> base object. Let's discuss this on the list !
> 
> > 2)
> > The Asynchronous Processing profile requires the service to index responses
> > *client* generates; the RequestID. I would be in favor of letting the
> > *service*
> > generate the quantity that it, itself, subsequently uses for lookups. This
> > would ensure that the properties of this quantity suit the service,
> > e.g. constant length, uniqueness, adequate randomness, etc.  It would also alleviate the
> > need for request-id collision detection and reporting.
> >
> > This would also require a change in the core schema, allowing an additional
> > optional attribute in the {Sign, Verify}Response that would carry a response
> > id, the use of which the asynchronous profile would mandate. Again, this
> > is identical to XKMS.
> 
> Yes, I see the problem, too. But it's the same excuse : I wanted to use the mechanism already
> defined in the core. I wouldn't mind to widen the core functionality, but you are manadating to
> narrow the functionality. Let's take this to the list, too.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> --- Nick Pope <pope@secstan.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andreas,
> >
> > It was forwarded to the list:
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/email/archives/200507/msg00
> > 007.html
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >   From: Andreas Kuehne [mailto:kuehne@klup.de]
> >   Sent: 11 July 2005 12:02
> >   To: Nick Pope
> >   Subject: Re: DSS Minutes for 11th July
> >
> >
> >   Hi Nick,
> >
> >   sorry for causing inconvenience !
> >
> >
> > Tommy on the Asynch profile ???
> > No, hadn't seen anything yet. Did he posted it to the list ?
> >   Greetings
> >
> >   Andreas
> >
> > Trevor has agreed to step in.
> >
> >   -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nick Pope [mailto:pope@secstan.com]
> > Sent: 10 July 2005 20:12
> > To: kuehne@klup.de
> > Subject: RE: DSS Minutes for 11th July
> >
> >
> > Andreas,
> >
> > OK - I'll find someone.
> >
> > Have you seen comments from Tommy on the Asynch profile?  Reaction?
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas Kuehne [mailto:akuehne@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: 09 July 2005 22:53
> > To: Nick Pope
> > Subject: Re: DSS Minutes for 11th July
> >
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I'm sorry but I have to commit that I cannot take minutes on Monday.
> >
> > I finally got an appointment ( regarding ebXML ) on Monday. I
> > just realized tha I'll be travelling
> > at ConfCall time. I'll try to dial in with my mobile ...
> >
> > Sorry for revoking my commitment ! Put me on the list for the
> > next meeting.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > --- Nick Pope <pope@secstan.com> wrote:
> >
> >       Andreas,
> >
> > Sorry to trouble you yet again, are you able to take minutes of
> >         the next DSS
> >       call this coming monday 11th.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
>